Actually this comment wasn't directed towards you specifically but in general in response to your observation on what is "widely seen throughout forums like this one". My apologies if that was not clear. I thank you for making the effort to elucidate on your views.
There are some fairly common opinions I see mentioned in the above that I see accepted by others, including some that I used to take at face value but on further reflection I have come to reject. For example I do not get the assertion that Martin's characters are supposedly better than Jordan's. According to what benchmarks? Much is made of how supposedly complex and realistic they are but my own feeling is they come across as essentially fake. One can level the same criticism against Jordan's characters too of course and on first blush his characters may apparently fare worse but in my view their personalities stand up better under scrutiny. Attempt to lampoon their characters and you'll find lots of material with Jordan's characters. Try the same with Martin's and I think the results tend to fall flat. I ascribe this to Martin's characters consisting more of image than something approaching genuine personality. If a Martin character is petty one quickly gets the feeling the character is petty for a particular purpose Martin has in mind. If a Jordan character is petty, there is no set rhyme or reason why Jordan has them that way except maybe he was having fun with them and their personalities took over. Martin's characterization might be described as more in control but I find Jordan's more authentic in spirit if not necessarily in the context of the story.
With regards to Erikson's characterization his characters one after another go on and on about feeling barren, desolate, and empty so much that I find Jordan's women's nattering a soothing balm in contrast.
Erikson's and Martin's worlds are better? How so? If you are looking for solidity one hand or open ended possibility on the other Martin lies on one end of the spectrum and Erikson on the other. Jordan squarely in the middle.
When thinking about it that's the most difficult place to be. Martin gets by with comparatively minor alterations to our world as a reference. Erikson has great latitude to do just about anything in his. Jordan is the one who combines the two to expand the constraints of one to the limitless possibility afforded by the other.
Your invocation of the comment that "Martin has to get a special acknowledgement[sic] for limiting magic and keeping it from being the cure-all to difficult problems, or surmounting insanely impossible odds" strikes me as an attempt to paper over and spin what is a glaring weakness of Martin's series as a fantasy. For a fantasy it just isn't that fantastic. Even in the ways it is fantastic it's utterly conventional. I find it incredibly ironic that the argument fans of Martin's series would use to have everyone else think of it as the best fantasy out there is that it's because it is "realistic". It does not help that the "realism" invoked for the argument is apparently of the most banal sort. I must ask is that what fantasy is about?
Initially I'm tempted to agree with your assessment of Erikson that he is more innovative with creatures races and the like. But again maybe that is something that deserves a second look. After a while all Erikson's creatures and races tend to look the same. Jaghut? Teblor? Tlan Imass? What's the diff? They are all super powerful and have existential issues that they are either constantly moping over or are stoic about. Jordan's creations while set in a more conventional world interact with it in ways as surprising as in Erikson's. When I consider the parallels between the humans and Tlan Imass of Erikson's with that between Tinkers and Aiel in WoT I find Jordan's use richer and more distinct. Erikson reuses the same motif with his other cultures like the various Tiste factions and while one can say the same for Jordan, again I'd say his handling of the Seanchan as descendents of Artur Hawkwing for yet another example draws a sharper, fuller distinction. If Erikson has exotica like Dragnipur, Jordan has a plethora of ter'angreal and something like the Aelfinn and Eelfinn which as creatures are dramatically different from others in Jordan's world which in contrast to Erikson's inventions all seem to serve roughly similar roles. I don't see Erikson's advantage in this area.
As for the predictability of the various series, while it's true WoT's ending prophesized as it is may in a sense be more predictable, is there anyone who really thinks that Martin's series won't come down to a confrontation between the icy Others and some sort of fiery coalition or that Erikson's will have something to do with the Mad God? I'd also like to say that part of the great fun with WoT as it was coming out was trying to tease out the meanings of various foreshadowing. Prophecy played a part in setting that up. I don't see Martin's or Erikson's hints and puzzles in any way to be better.
Indeed in Martin's case there seems a distinct lack of variety in kinds of revelation. Enumerate the high points of aSoIaF so far and I don't see how one can avoid tilting towards a lot of surprise deaths. It's gotten predictable. With WoT I'd say a greater preponderance of notable moments come from carefully setup moments of discovery rather than spectacular but increasingly unoriginal death scenes.
With Erikson I am strangely left detached. Scenarios are built up over and over again with a sense of grand mystique but then half the resolutions to them leave me wondering did something significant in the story just happen or was that a whole lot of filler? Everything is so overpowered and overtly magical it is hard to separate what magical occurrence is significant from one that is commonplace. They all seem to blend together in a hazy morass. An example would be the various races. Each time one is introduced one is intrigued with this new powerful group and what role they might play. Afterward, however, one is left with the feeling that they were awfully similar to all the previously mentioned groups. Predictable is perhaps too harsh, but can it be described as repetitive.
WoT is the fantasy series I hold in highest esteem because it exemplifies the spirit and traits that I find so appealing in fantasy and that are more difficult to render in other genres. It's imagination, creativity, and ambition are nowhere close to being matched by a series like aSoIaF. Malazan on the other hand while being a celebration of fantastic imagery is at its heart a series about constraint and not unbounded possibility. These for me are antithetical to the very essence of the idea of fantasy. Let other genres limited by their inherent boundaries bemoan the wretched state of the human condition. For fantasy fans to hold as paragons series that circumscribe themselves in such a way though is masochistic. I see no reason why the muggle-like thinking that lies behind the raves about series like aSoIaF and Malazan should be aspired to.
You see WoT ushering in long "never ending" series as bad. I see a series that has contributed to breaking previous boundaries and increasing possibilities.
Let there be more series like WoT, not less.
Last edited:
